 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Mahi4/7/2004
ai'i Rules of Penal Procedure (HRPP) Rule 16.
(4) Mahi's Motion for Reconsideration of Denial of Motion to Compel Regarding Certain Requests was properly denied because Mahi presented no new evidence or arguments that rendered the earlier adjudication invalid. Amfac, Inc. v. Waikiki Beachcomber Inv. Co., 74 Haw. 85, 114, 839 P.2d 10, 27 (1992).
(5) The MVSO report was properly excluded as untrustworthy hearsay pursuant to Hawaii Rules of Evidence (HRE) Rules 801 and 802 and failed to meet the HRE Rules 803(a)(1), 803(b)(8), and 804(b)(7) exceptions.
***2 (6) As a first time DUI-drug offender under HRS § 291-7 Mahi was not entitled to a jury trial. State v. Sullivan, 97 Hawai'i 259, 36 P.3d 803 (2001).
(7) Mahi's sentence under HRS § 291-7 did not constitute cruel and unusual punishment because HRS § 291-7 does not allow the court to grant a conditional discharge. State v. Melear, 63 Haw. 488, 500, 630 P.2d 619, 628 (1981).
Therefore,
We affirm the October 13, 2003 Judgment of the District Court of the First Circuit, Kaneohe Division.
Page 1 2 Hawaii DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|